December 17, 2014, 08:17:05 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sanj

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 115
331
i bet 800mm f5.6..... new 100-400mm will come in 2016.   ::)

Yes! The new 800…. Hoping.

332
I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

I request you to reconsider. 'Make sense' is subjective. To me, spending a little money on doing creative things that makes one happy makes sense. Life is short, we should do what we can.

333
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 08:07:36 AM »
I have both, and use the 24mm 1.4 when I can - because 1.4 is much better than 2.8 :D

It is true that shooting people at 16mm is a challenge.  But, if you keep them dead center, generally most of the distortion is avoided.  If you do it right, you can actually make some quite impressive photos where you essentially isolate a mostly-undistorted subject via distorton (instead of say bokeh).

Generally I use the 16-35 for parts of events where 24 won't be wide enough, or for the ultimate in environmental portraiture.  Is having 16-23mm absolutely 100% necessary?  Probably not, but then again those unique shots is what can make your work stand out.
You're correct, and in my case, I never had clients who appreciated that type of shot, so I never went for it.  I've seen some amazing bridal shots and portraits with 12 and 14mm lenses, so it's definitely possible if used correctly and I'm sure you've taken some great ones :)

One very cool thing you can do with shift lenses is shift to the side and then frame a person on the opposite side to the shift, doing this you can put a person on the extreme edge of a 17mm shot with no distortion.

Interesting.

334
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 07:54:06 AM »
Except when you are forced to 12800+ ISO on the f/4 IS to compensate for less light entering the camera due to a maximum aperture of f/4 at a dim event, in which case the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8L II at f/2.8-ISO 6400 will be far superior.  f/4 lets in half the light of f/2.8, meaning you will be forced into motion-blur inducing shutter speeds or very high isos in dim light with moving subjects.  IS can't help motion blur.  I did see you qualify with your statements with "unless you need f/2.8," but the rest of your post seems to ignore these important issues.

Indeed.  The extra stop of the f/2.8 lens is certainly needed in some cases.  Looking over my EXIF, for me that need is very, very rare.

Yep, and when it is really dark even 2.8 may not work. F2 and wider would be required.

335
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 07:51:55 AM »
I just bought one in Bombay for USD 1,131

336
What I'm trying to explain is that in fashion you rarely/never shoot in a way to get most of the model lost in bokeh. Wide open or not, it's about showing the clothes. So if I shoot at 1.8, It's likely a full body shot, or at least a bust, but even when it's a bust, it's likely to have focus on something in the shot, like accessories.

I'm trying do distinguish popular wedding look, which is bokeh, bokeh, more bokeh, from actual commercial way of shooting which is product, product, more product.

Yes, I understand why event photographers that shoot wide open might find their focus lacking.

However, I don't get why people complain for "still" work. So, okay, yes, my camera would probably search for focus endlessly if I set it to a focus point other then the center one, especially in low light, so I don't.

I'm trying to learn here. I guess my question should be: What/how/when do you use those other AF points for? And how do people do it on MF systems where there is only one, is there a way to apply same techniques?

MF Hasselblads have a focus system that readjusts itself when you recompose.

That seems so nice.

337
What I'm trying to explain is that in fashion you rarely/never shoot in a way to get most of the model lost in bokeh. Wide open or not, it's about showing the clothes. So if I shoot at 1.8, It's likely a full body shot, or at least a bust, but even when it's a bust, it's likely to have focus on something in the shot, like accessories.

I'm trying do distinguish popular wedding look, which is bokeh, bokeh, more bokeh, from actual commercial way of shooting which is product, product, more product.

Yes, I understand why event photographers that shoot wide open might find their focus lacking.

However, I don't get why people complain for "still" work. So, okay, yes, my camera would probably search for focus endlessly if I set it to a focus point other then the center one, especially in low light, so I don't.

I'm trying to learn here. I guess my question should be: What/how/when do you use those other AF points for? And how do people do it on MF systems where there is only one, is there a way to apply same techniques?

No. Fashion is about creating mood, catalog is about clothes.
Your point about how to apply better focus techniques when there is only one focus point is of interest to me. I would like to learn that as well.

338
A bit early in the update cycle if true when compared to previous updates maybe? I would think it would be later in 2015 that replacements are possibly announced with closer to 2016 with an actual release if there will be updates.

True

339
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Shipping This Week
« on: June 23, 2014, 01:42:29 AM »
Now I just have to decide whether to keep the 16-35/2.8L II or sell it and buy the 16-35/4L IS.

You already know that you must buy the new f/4L. It's just too sharp and convenient. The question is whether or not you also keep your f/2.8...
Doesn't make sense to me. I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II
Since 3 days I own the 16-35 f/4. Haven't used it extensively but enough to say that it is a better lens - for me - and it was a good decision to sell the 16-35 f/2.8 II. Why keep both?

He never said he will keep both.

340
This photo has shallow depth. It may not be a great photo but comes under the category of fashion/portrait.

I hope fashion does not mean to you catalog photos. God forbid.

341
Skooby go easy on Neuro, he is trying to explain to you something which is nice to know. He is saying that when you have very shallow depth of field because of aperture/lens combo it is always best to focus with a focus point closest to the subject so when you move the camera to recompose the focus plane does not shift. Nothing wrong with that right?

And to say that all fashion or portrait photographs require lens to be closed down is not correct, is it? There are lovely fashion photos with no depth of field at all….

To reply to your original question, I think people complain about auto focus because many times because of various reasons like lack of contrast or light, the camera fails to lock focus. Or you asking something else?

342
Great stories guys, I had never realized that the day I will get married, I would need to find such a way to entertain the photographer...
It's not about entertaining the photographer.  It was merely a story about how sometimes not everything goes quite as planned but in spite of that, the couple are in love and get married and start off on a wonderful life together.  Plus, it was more about my interaction with the groom than a comment on the bride's lateness.  We're just pointing out that regardless of the glitches, it always works out but there are times when you hold your breath hoping it will.  And then it does.

Oops, I think I've been misinterpreted. I genuinely enjoyed the stories. The thing about entertaining the photographers was just a pinch of humor. Aren't we on the Canon humor forum after all!

I got your humor first time around. Chill. :)

343
Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: June 21, 2014, 12:01:49 PM »
24-105 is practically useless for wildlife

344
Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 21, 2014, 12:00:30 PM »
Nice post.

345
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 20, 2014, 02:08:49 AM »
honestly, i do love fuji cameras.  however, either one of the following will work:

1. if one are willing to learn about photography and have fun with all its challenges , dslr with optical viewfinder would be the camera he/she should buy, or
2. if one WOULD NOT LIKE to learn about photography, then a mirror-less camera should be the one that he/she will pick up since:
    a. you get what you see which is, to me, no challenge and fun, and
    b. ease of use (even a kid can get a right exposure after less than an hour of learning.)

if i have to buy a mirror-less so that my wife can also use, fuji x-pro1 or fuji x100s will be the one that i am going to buy since i think it does offer, sort of, optical viewfinder.  fuji xt-1 (my friend lets me use his for few times) is a wonderful camera, but too bad, it does not offer optical viewfinder like the other two...  hopefully fuji offers both again in the future...

it is just my personal thought and i am not a pro either...

I feel differently. Photography is about photography. It is not about the difficulty with which photos are taken. Photography to me is capturing beauty, telling stories. I am impressed by photos, not with the technique with which the photo was taken unless the technique itself is creating magic.

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 115